[R&F] Emperor and up is plain boring

[Tech Osen]

The sweet point in the fun-challenge-chore triangle is at a different point for everyone. I like building wonders but if I know in advance that I can get any wonder I want then it's not fun for me. I need a bit of a challenge, even after a long day's work.
Anyway, just play with the parameters you enjoy, nobody has any business judging you for it.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

The sweet point in the fun-challenge-chore triangle is at a different point for everyone. I like building wonders but if I know in advance that I can get any wonder I want then it's not fun for me. I need a bit of a challenge, even after a long day's work.
Anyway, just play with the parameters you enjoy, nobody has any business judging you for it.

Yes, I am sure it is a tough balancing act for the Development Team to work through. I certainly don't want everything to be too easy. I would just rather not have a specific list and order of things I need to do, or have certain wonders or strategies be pure traps. If you shouldn't ever build certain wonders or buildings or risk doom, why are they even in the game then?

 

[Victoria]

98% of all games on this difficulty has the exact same starts for the first 50 turns.

... because you play the exact same starts?
I agree to a degree about deity but not emperor. I have built one city for the first 50 turns and I have built 6.
I have built 4 wonders or no wonders
I have built 20 troops or 0 troops.

It sounds like you are playing the same way, Br brave! Do something different and see how it goes. You will be surprised how well you will survive.

My last game I said I want a capital that is +6 production for trade routes as soon as I can, that was my main initial aim and it worked fine.... what do you consider being different?

 

[Bibor]

If you don't enjoy Emperor and above, then stick to below Emperor. Personally I find anything below Emperor way too easy, but I don't create posts complaining that it is too boring to play below Emperor.

I disagree, You misinterpret what he OP is saying. It’s not about difficulty, it’s about the fact that AIs are one-trick ponies when it comes to early aggression on map sizes standard and below. Early AI aggression is basically “drop all plans - build units” and since the fist 100 turns are arguably the most interesting ones in civ6, it becomes boring real quick to be forced to have the same kneejerk reaction to a very rudimentary AI aggression code. They can’t even win 90% of the time vs human and the end result is anywhere between "here take all our GPT and resources" or "here take most of our cities" depending on whether you have iron or not.

Needing to have a minimum 3 warriors and 3 slingers with 1 turn to Archery every. Single. Game. is not my idea of early buildup options that the game supposedly offers.

 

[Victoria]

Early AI aggression is basically “drop all plans - build units

Practically every emperor game I play is scout, builder, settler monument or the last 2 swapped so I am very confused.. sure I sometimes get attacked but then I change my plans, it makes it more fun and challenging. The choice to sling sling sling is just a wargamers fallacy.

 

[Tabarnak]

Haha you wouldn't like these 8 players mp games on small pangeas high sea level!

 

[DJ_Tanner]

Well how are you expanding? I mean if you expand aggressively then the AI is, and by all accounts should, react with aggression.

I mostly play Immortal and I rarely get myself into many wars. I can get through entire games without a single war, but a normal game is just a few skirmishes, unless I start next to a Monty or Gilga etc. But that is how I play, and always have really. Just an empire builder keeping to myself. That said it typcally means I will give up certain lands for potentially less desirable ones if I think it over extends or steps on toes. I have never found the AI is systematically over aggressive, although there is the game here and there that starts, sits, and ends in nothing but war.

 

[Red_warning]

The limited number of viable strategies on higher difficulties is the main reason why I don't play on anything higher than emperor. Accepting a bad start is usually a better way of getting a decent challenge imho.

 

[Bibor]

Practically every emperor game I play is scout, builder, settler monument or the last 2 swapped so I am very confused.. sire I sometimes get attacked but then I change my plans, it makes it more fun and challenging. The choice to sling sling sling is just a wargamers fallacy.

If I started 30 games in the last week (and I probably did), 25 of those games ended up with the AI saying "hi" before I hit archery. These were Panagaea games, mind you, so that might've been a factor. I usually don't use slingers, in fact I've learned warriors are a much better investment. I usually build 4 warriors and 2 slingers now.

 

[Archon_Wing]

That happens a lot on Emperor, if only because I don't research archery until like turn 40-50 in many games.

Back in R&F I'd actually do slinger overflow, lol.

And yea, unless you're going against Aztecs or America, usually building a few warriors is easy defense.

 

[Tech Osen]

I disagree, You misinterpret what he OP is saying. It’s not about difficulty, it’s about the fact that AIs are one-trick ponies when it comes to early aggression on map sizes standard and below. Early AI aggression is basically “drop all plans - build units” and since the fist 100 turns are arguably the most interesting ones in civ6, it becomes boring real quick to be forced to have the same kneejerk reaction to a very rudimentary AI aggression code. They can’t even win 90% of the time vs human and the end result is anywhere between "here take all our GPT and resources" or "here take most of our cities" depending on whether you have iron or not.

Needing to have a minimum 3 warriors and 3 slingers with 1 turn to Archery every. Single. Game. is not my idea of early buildup options that the game supposedly offers.

I have had very little issues with early aggression since GS but that can just be pure luck of course. And rarely build another warrior early on, though it depends on who my neighbours are. Lately my early build order has been scout-slinger-builder-settler-slinger-settler-slinger. Playing on emperor/continents with high sea level, standard size map.

 

[Victoria]

These were Panagaea games,

Pangea small?
I play continents standard so there we go. The choice to just play Pangea is someone who often cannot be bothered with seafaring... therefore their choice.
@Tech Osen also plays continents and has no issue and has more variety.

 

[Bibor]

I like Pangaea because... I don't know I just do. I like continents as well, but I think it's because I like long rivers perhaps I should try and play on large/huge continents, dunno.

I have had very little issues with early aggression since GS but that can just be pure luck of course. And rarely build another warrior early on, though it depends on who my neighbours are. Lately my early build order has been scout-slinger-builder-settler-slinger-settler-slinger. Playing on emperor/continents with high sea level, standard size map.

My order is this (on a Pangaea):
If woods or hill jungle in capital (so enough food/production): scout, scout, warrior, (warrior), settler, settler, slinger, slinger, warrior, monument.
Slingers or warriors (depending on terrain), then monuments in new towns.
If no passable features in capital, then scout, worker, warrior, (warrior), settler, settler, slinger, slinger, warrior, monument.

TLDR; I think early workers are overrated in some scenarios, especially if irrigation resources are in play and no farmable resource to boost irrigation

 

[Infixo]

Needing to have a minimum 3 warriors and 3 slingers with 1 turn to Archery every. Single. Game. is not my idea of early buildup options that the game supposedly offers

Is this some kind of mod that requires you to do that? I don’t have such requirements in my games. Weird.

 

[Bibor]

Is this some kind of mod that requires you to do that? I don’t have such requirements in my games. Weird.

On a medium or small pangaea, you'll most likely be a target of at least one aggressive AI before you can bring out your 3rd settler. The only way to prevent it is to have a power rating high enough to make the AI change it's mind. Since warriors count for more rating than slingers (and are generally better suited for camp clearing), I build a bunch of warriors and some slingers to help out.
I miss the CIV4 AI logic where city count counted for score, and thus power rating, apparently it doesn't anymore (not sure, though).

 

[MrRadar]

On a medium or small pangaea, you'll most likely be a target of at least one aggressive AI before you can bring out your 3rd settler. The only way to prevent it is to have a power rating high enough to make the AI change it's mind.

Have you ever tried a diplomatic way? A delegation on sight and favourable moon can be enough to flip a neighbour to friendly, then quick signature on a DoF and (s)he's off your back for minimum 30 turns.

 

[Jkchart]

Absolutely not.


I don't find Civ6 focused on war, not at all. Playing peacefully is a legit way to go. And it is even more challenging on higher difficulties because AI settles damn fast.

Thank you. I'm glad someone else feels this way.

IMO, GS made peaceful play even more common. In my most recently finished game, I was Hungary with Eleanor to my North, Spain to my West, and Sweden/Georgia on the south end of my continent. I managed to befriend and ally every single one of them the whole game and never had a war on my continent. It was only when late game defensive pacts came head to head that i was forced into a single war. I managed to actually pull off my second Diplo Victory with Hungary (finally!) and it was my second best scoring game overall. I know people swear by the war meta, but peaceful play is really possible and you can make it fun.

If i go to war, I prefer being the aggrieved party so I can get away with what I want more!

 

[Vizurok]

I find it so strange that there are still people who say that war is the only way to go on Deity. Yes, war might be the easiest option for a quick win, but currently, you can easily avoid war during the whole game.

GS map generation seems to create even more torn apart landmasses on both Continent and Pangaea maps, so the AI can't really rush you by surprise. But even better, you won't really get declared on if you don't want to - sending an immediate delegation, having open borders and maybe offering a slightly favorable trade deal to the AI will make most AIs friendly by the end of the Ancient age. Also, you don't need to friend all AIs immediately, as usually there are only 1-2 AIs that can significantly harm you in the early game. After the initial survival phase, you DO have to focus on expansion, but if you can get 7-10 cities, any victory condition should be easily achievable. (You can easily forward-settle the AIs after declaring friendship, you will get so many positive modifiers that the penalty for settling near them will not matter).

 

[Jkchart]

I find it so strange that there are still people who say that war is the only way to go on Deity. Yes, war might be the easiest option for a quick win, but currently, you can easily avoid war during the whole game.

GS map generation seems to create even more torn apart landmasses on both Continent and Pangaea maps, so the AI can't really rush you by surprise. But even better, you won't really get declared on if you don't want to - sending an immediate delegation, having open borders and maybe offering a slightly favorable trade deal to the AI will make most AIs friendly by the end of the Ancient age. Also, you don't need to friend all AIs immediately, as usually there are only 1-2 AIs that can significantly harm you in the early game. After the initial survival phase, you DO have to focus on expansion, but if you can get 7-10 cities, any victory condition should be easily achievable. (You can easily forward-settle the AIs after declaring friendship, you will get so many positive modifiers that the penalty for settling near them will not matter).

It's pretty easy to play friendly. If you respect their wishes, and offer them favorable trade deals like you say.

Again, referencing my Hungary game, the two closest people to me of the four on my continent were Spain and Eleanor of France. The other two were Georgia and Sweden, both farther away.

Eleanor complained about two or three cities I settled near her early game, but I would space them out and wait until I had fulfilled the promise. This worked well. By the late game, I got another two or three without complaint. I left the top half of the continent to her (above our shared mountain range with a few passes), and we signed a cultural alliance. I was also one of her only friends so we just kept it going and we never had issues beyond that.

I pushed my luck with Philip and forward settled 4 cities near him quickly because of the land between us (and because I wanted a port on the west side of the continent). Amazingly, he never complained so I kept doing it. Presumably he was happy with our trade deals and commerce, so I just didn't aggravate him further. The other two were far enough that we never had border issues and I played nice. Spain and Georgia hated Sweden (who gobbled up Georgia's Eastern Provinces), and I think Eleanor and Sweden hated each other too, but I played nice with everyone and the continent remained largely static border wise after the Industrial era.

It's easy to play nice if you see the computer as other nations deserving of (some) respect instead of doing what you please to them when you want. Spacing out aggressive placements and respecting promises really builds your reputation well and leaves you with lots of allies.

 

[Victoria]

Yes, one of my first GS games was a peaceful CV win on deity with Sweden, it was quite easy and I did it with 6 cities.
This talk about 1 way to play is just nonsense.